O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

[JDUBBS1280]

Your opinion is a retarded one. You think these guys need college to showcase their talent? People that follow basketball knew who LeBron James was when he was in 7th grade. The NFL and NBA have rules that prevent players from coming into their leagues out of high school. So your "they can always opt out" comment is bullcrap. Not only that, they aren't guaranteed to have all four years of college paid for. If a guy blows his knee out, the coach doesn't have to renew his scholarship.
The NCAA made almost $800 million on last years basketball tournament. But a player gets so much as a free sandwich, he gets suspended. It is not a "hell of a deal".

Good thing you called his opinion retarded. I didn't agree with your views before, but now I feel compelled to

 

[Tipsy McStagger]

Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

Lebron James is the exception, not the rule.

The minimum age for entry into the NBA is 19. The NBA collective bargaining agreement ratified in 2006 requires that entrants be at least one year removed from high school. Instead of college, players can "opt" to showcase their talent elsewhere in an overseas pro league or semi-pro for pay.

Funny comment (although not out of character for you). Student athletes get all the "free sandwiches" they need as part of their on campus or off campus meal allowance. College Athletes Need No Paychecks.

LeBron is an exception only in the 7th grade part. Tyus Jones is another kid who got national attention in middle school. The point is that by the time these kids graduate high school, there are a dozen or so that are known nationally and are certainly known by NBA personnel who could judge whether they could play in the league. They don't need the exposure that NCAA basketball provides.

You talked about playing overseas or in the D-League. Is that just? Those are not comparable options. The NBA likes forcing teenagers to go to college for one year, it reduces their risk. Jennings has basically been the only big name player to test the overseas waters. And their style of basketball is a lot different than the NBA. Jennings didn't play much and as a result it probably hurt his draft stock. "Some players support the new age limit." Okay, so Gerald Green said it was a smart move. Interestingly enough, HE WENT TO THE NBA STRAIGHT FROM HIGH SCHOOL. "Do as I say, not as I do", I guess.

In the third annual High School Hoops magazine, the players weighed in on the subject of the new rules regarding draft eligibility. Many of them felt that it was unfair. Kansas State freshman Bill Walker, said (as a junior in high school), "I'm against it. I don't see why you have to be 19 to play a game of basketball when you can be 18 and go to war for our country and die. It's ridiculous." Jerryd Bayless said "It's not fair at all. If a tennis player can go pro at 13, I don't understand why a basketball player can't go pro at 18."

Why is it ok for players to be drafted out of high school into the NHL or MLB, but not the NBA? Or do you think Sidney Crosby should have been forced to spend another year playing in Juniors?

 

[Tipsy McStagger]

Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

Good thing you called his opinion retarded. I didn't agree with your views before, but now I feel compelled to

HAHAHAHAHA. Not that, anything but that.

I am glad I don't have you on my side.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

HAHAHAHAHA. Not that, anything but that.

I am glad I don't have you on my side.

I'm not on anyone's "side" on this. I can see both points of view. I just don't think hurling insults is an effective form of persuasion.

It screams, "I'm not overly confident in the points I'm making, so I'm going to try and ridicule you in hopes that you don't challenge my opinions".

 

[Tipsy McStagger]

Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

I'm not on anyone's "side" on this. I can see both points of view. I just don't think hurling insults is an effective form of persuasion.

It screams, "I'm not overly confident in the points I'm making, so I'm going to try and ridicule you in hopes that you don't challenge my opinions".

The opinion was ridiculed, not the person. The opinion that it is a "hell of a deal" for students to get a free education in exchange for their fair share of a multi-billion dollar revenue stream, is retarded to me. Mainly for the superstar players, which is the ones that this lawsuit primarily affects. They get one year of college paid for, a value of between $10k and 25k in most cases. In exchange for that, the NCAA gets the rights to sell their likeness, their image and the jersey they wore in perpetuity. Not a fair trade. Certainly not a hell of a deal.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

The opinion was ridiculed, not the person. The opinion that it is a "hell of a deal" for students to get a free education in exchange for their fair share of a multi-billion dollar revenue stream, is retarded to me. Mainly for the superstar players, which is the ones that this lawsuit primarily affects. They get one year of college paid for, a value of between $10k and 25k in most cases. In exchange for that, the NCAA gets the rights to sell their likeness, their image and the jersey they wore in perpetuity. Not a fair trade. Certainly not a hell of a deal.

I understand your point of view, and don't completely disagree with you. It was the classification of his opinion as "retarded" that I was objecting to. I think you have made very strong points in support of your opinion.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

The opinion was ridiculed, not the person. The opinion that it is a "hell of a deal" for students to get a free education in exchange for their fair share of a multi-billion dollar revenue stream, is retarded to me. Mainly for the superstar players, which is the ones that this lawsuit primarily affects. They get one year of college paid for, a value of between $10k and 25k in most cases. In exchange for that, the NCAA gets the rights to sell their likeness, their image and the jersey they wore in perpetuity. Not a fair trade. Certainly not a hell of a deal.

I don't think the opinion is as out of line as you might suggest.

Keep in mind a couple of significant facts. First, the player gets his or her benefit regardless as to whether they turn into any sort of player around which the NCAA or the school might make a buck. Kid flops, blows out a knee, lots of different outcomes can result in a player having virtually no value from a marketing standpoint to either the University or NCAA.

Second, how much does the school, or even more significantly, the NCAA, truly make off of an individual player's likeness? You scoff at $25,000, but how many kids generate $25,000 worth of merchandise sales using their likeness?

Third, there is a significant proof problem these kids will have. Right now there is a lawsuit going on involving the NFL and former players. The former players claim that the NFL is raking in billions using their likenesses on things like NFL films, etc... A tentative settlement has occurred, but a group of players represented by Minneapolis attorney Mike Ciresi are lobbying to have the settlement rejected, thinking they can get more.

But those players in favor of a settlement point out some good facts. First, how much is each player's likeness really used. Second, what is that worth?

I think at the end of the day one of the problems these players, along with anyone pursuing these college claims, will have is connecting the dots between money generated by the NCAA/individual universities and their specific likeness.

 

[Tipsy McStagger]

Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

I don't think the opinion is as out of line as you might suggest.

Keep in mind a couple of significant facts. First, the player gets his or her benefit regardless as to whether they turn into any sort of player around which the NCAA or the school might make a buck. Kid flops, blows out a knee, lots of different outcomes can result in a player having virtually no value from a marketing standpoint to either the University or NCAA.

Second, how much does the school, or even more significantly, the NCAA, truly make off of an individual player's likeness? You scoff at $25,000, but how many kids generate $25,000 worth of merchandise sales using their likeness?

Third, there is a significant proof problem these kids will have. Right now there is a lawsuit going on involving the NFL and former players. The former players claim that the NFL is raking in billions using their likenesses on things like NFL films, etc... A tentative settlement has occurred, but a group of players represented by Minneapolis attorney Mike Ciresi are lobbying to have the settlement rejected, thinking they can get more.

But those players in favor of a settlement point out some good facts. First, how much is each player's likeness really used. Second, what is that worth?

I think at the end of the day one of the problems these players, along with anyone pursuing these college claims, will have is connecting the dots between money generated by the NCAA/individual universities and their specific likeness.

In response to your first "fact", that is not true. If a player blows his knee out, flops or if a new coach comes in that doesn't think the player is good enough, the coach can choose not to renew the player's scholarship. They aren't guaranteed four years.

UNC has probably made millions off of Michael Jordan's likeness. Ditto Georgetown and Allen Iverson. Also consider how much more apparel Michigan sold because of the Fab 5. They changed the image of the school and made it cool to wear Michigan clothes. Their affect was probably felt for years after they left school.

There are a couple easy solutions to this. The first is to give players a percentage of the revenue generated from the sale of their jerseys and their image. Being able to put a name on the jersey or video game might even lead to increased sales. A second solution is to allow sponsorships and endorsements. It is of no extra cost to the school and would allow the players to cash in on their own names. It does belong to them, after all.

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

In response to your first "fact", that is not true. If a player blows his knee out, flops or if a new coach comes in that doesn't think the player is good enough, the coach can choose not to renew the player's scholarship. They aren't guaranteed four years.

UNC has probably made millions off of Michael Jordan's likeness. Ditto Georgetown and Allen Iverson. Also consider how much more apparel Michigan sold because of the Fab 5. They changed the image of the school and made it cool to wear Michigan clothes. Their affect was probably felt for years after they left school.

There are a couple easy solutions to this. The first is to give players a percentage of the revenue generated from the sale of their jerseys and their image. Being able to put a name on the jersey or video game might even lead to increased sales. A second solution is to allow sponsorships and endorsements. It is of no extra cost to the school and would allow the players to cash in on their own names. It does belong to them, after all.

Major corporations make billions of dollars off of hardworking people who only make 10's of thousands of dollars a year. These student athletes make schools millions of dollars and are being compesated with an education worth 10's of thousands of dollars a year...just because some of them don't value their education as much as most people in school, doesn't mean it's not worth anything (not to mention how luxurious some of these team facilities are). They will have little to no debt when they leave, and some will sign multi million dollar contracts. All because they are very good at a game. Sounds like a much better deal than the rest of us got in college.

If they don't like it....they can not play and pay for school like the rest of us.

 

[Tipsy McStagger]

Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

Major corporations make billions of dollars off of hardworking people who only make 10's of thousands of dollars a year. These student athletes make schools millions of dollars and are being compesated with an education worth 10's of thousands of dollars a year...just because some of them don't value their education as much as most people in school, doesn't mean it's not worth anything (not to mention how luxurious some of these team facilities are). They will have little to no debt when they leave, and some will sign multi million dollar contracts. All because they are very good at a game. Sounds like a much better deal than the rest of us got in college.

If they don't like it....they can not play and pay for school like the rest of us.

Let me know when a major corporation can compensate their employees with only lodging, food and store credit. Then that will be a valid comparison.

“When you dream about playing in college,” Joseph Agnew told me not long ago, “you don’t ever think about being in a lawsuit.” Agnew, a student at Rice University in Houston, had been cut from the football team and had his scholarship revoked by Rice before his senior year, meaning that he faced at least $35,000 in tuition and other bills if he wanted to complete his degree in sociology. Bereft of his scholarship, he was flailing about for help when he discovered the National College Players Association, which claims 7,000 active members and seeks modest reforms such as safety guidelines and better death benefits for college athletes. Agnew was struck by the NCPA scholarship data on players from top Division I basketball teams, which showed that 22 percent were not renewed from 2008 to 2009—the same fate he had suffered.

In October 2010, Agnew filed a class-action antitrust suit over the cancellation of his scholarship and to remove the cap on the total number of scholarships that can be awarded by NCAA schools. In his suit, Agnew did not claim the right to free tuition. He merely asked the federal court to strike down an NCAA rule, dating to 1973, that prohibited colleges and universities from offering any athletic scholarship longer than a one-year commitment, to be renewed or not, unilaterally, by the school—which in practice means that coaches get to decide each year whose scholarships to renew or cancel. (After the coach who had recruited Agnew had moved on to Tulsa, the new Rice coach switched Agnew’s scholarship to a recruit of his own.) Agnew argued that without the one-year rule, he would have been free to bargain with all eight colleges that had recruited him, and each college could have decided how long to guarantee his scholarship.

Agnew’s suit rested on a claim of an NCAA antitrust violation combined with a laudable academic goal—making it possible for students to finish their educations. Around the same time, lawyers from President Obama’s Justice Department initiated a series of meetings with NCAA officials and universities in which they asked what possible educational rationale there was for allowing the NCAA—an organization that did not itself pay for scholarships—to impose a blanket restriction on the length of scholarships offered by colleges. Tidbits leaked into the press. In response, the NCAA contended that an athletic scholarship was a “merit award” that should be reviewed annually, presumably because the degree of “merit” could change. Justice Department lawyers reportedly suggested that a free market in scholarships would expand learning opportunities in accord with the stated rationale for the NCAA’s tax-exempt status—that it promotes education through athletics. The one-year rule effectively allows colleges to cut underperforming “student-athletes,” just as pro sports teams cut their players. “Plenty of them don’t stay in school,” said one of Agnew’s lawyers, Stuart Paynter.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

In response to your first "fact", that is not true. If a player blows his knee out, flops or if a new coach comes in that doesn't think the player is good enough, the coach can choose not to renew the player's scholarship. They aren't guaranteed four years.

UNC has probably made millions off of Michael Jordan's likeness. Ditto Georgetown and Allen Iverson. Also consider how much more apparel Michigan sold because of the Fab 5. They changed the image of the school and made it cool to wear Michigan clothes. Their affect was probably felt for years after they left school.

There are a couple easy solutions to this. The first is to give players a percentage of the revenue generated from the sale of their jerseys and their image. Being able to put a name on the jersey or video game might even lead to increased sales. A second solution is to allow sponsorships and endorsements. It is of no extra cost to the school and would allow the players to cash in on their own names. It does belong to them, after all.

You, or anyone else, saying it and proving it in a court of law are two vastly different things.

If U of Michigan sells a basketball Jersey with Webber on it, you can prove your point. But I bet that is a tiny, miniscule fraction of the sales of Michigan articles. Every time they sell a pair of baggy basketball shorts with a Michigan logo on it there is virtually zero chance Chris Webber, Jalen Rose or any of the rest can prove it was because of them. Zero.

 

[Tipsy McStagger]

Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

You, or anyone else, saying it and proving it in a court of law are two vastly different things.

If U of Michigan sells a basketball Jersey with Webber on it, you can prove your point. But I bet that is a tiny, miniscule fraction of the sales of Michigan articles. Every time they sell a pair of baggy basketball shorts with a Michigan logo on it there is virtually zero chance Chris Webber, Jalen Rose or any of the rest can prove it was because of them. Zero.

In this particular case, proving it will be quite easy. All the plaintiffs have to do is show that the NCAA sold the rights to their image after they were no longer at the school. In O'Bannon's instance, he can show the judge that there was a 6"8" 225 lb man with black skin that played at UCLA in 1995, wore #31 and was left handed on a video game that the NCAA licensed.

 

[fangers]

Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

The opinion was ridiculed, not the person. The opinion that it is a "hell of a deal" for students to get a free education in exchange for their fair share of a multi-billion dollar revenue stream, is retarded to me. Mainly for the superstar players, which is the ones that this lawsuit primarily affects. They get one year of college paid for, a value of between $10k and 25k in most cases. In exchange for that, the NCAA gets the rights to sell their likeness, their image and the jersey they wore in perpetuity. Not a fair trade. Certainly not a hell of a deal.

My issue with this specific lawsuit - I do think there are other more prevalent/pressing issues like multi year scholarships - is that it would only positively impact maybe 5% of all student-athletes, tops. It stands to do more potential damage to the other 95% if scholarships done away with - there are many, manay more youung athletes who may never have had gotten college eduation without them.

This is simply a greed based initiative by a very, very, very small minority.

 

[Tipsy McStagger]

Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

My issue with this specific lawsuit - I do think there are other more prevalent/pressing issues like multi year scholarships - is that it would only positively impact maybe 5% of all student-athletes, tops. It stands to do more potential damage to the other 95% if scholarships done away with - there are many, manay more youung athletes who may never have had gotten college eduation without them.

This is simply a greed based initiative by a very, very, very small minority.

So Ed O'Bannon, Bill Russell, etc. are being greedy for suing the NCAA for a piece of the profits that are gained by selling their name and likeness years after they were under NCAA control? Didn't the NCAA exist before video games? Before games were televised? Did they have scholarships before the NCAA started selling themselves to the highest bidder?

The NCAA has become a business. If they can't figure out a way to pay the employees or at the minimum get rid of all the ridiculous restrictions placed on the "student-athletes", then maybe they deserve to fold.

 

[fangers]

Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

So Ed O'Bannon, Bill Russell, etc. are being greedy for suing the NCAA for a piece of the profits that are gained by selling their name and likeness years after they were under NCAA control? Didn't the NCAA exist before video games? Before games were televised? Did they have scholarships before the NCAA started selling themselves to the highest bidder?

The NCAA has become a business. If they can't figure out a way to pay the employees or at the minimum get rid of all the ridiculous restrictions placed on the "student-athletes", then maybe they deserve to fold.

Like how you gloss over the fact that this only rewards a very small number of student-athletes.

And there are two different issues: 1) paying them WHILE in school and 2) paying them AFTER the left school. I have no problem with #2 because they've moved on and should be entitled to something. But to enable #1 opens the door for far more problems for the majority than it solves for small minority.

 

[Tipsy McStagger]

Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

Like how you gloss over the fact that this only rewards a very small number of student-athletes.

And there are two different issues: 1) paying them WHILE in school and 2) paying them AFTER the left school. I have no problem with #2 because they've moved on and should be entitled to something. But to enable #1 opens the door for far more problems for the majority than it solves for small minority.

I glossed over it because it is irrelevant. If basketball and football and in some schools hockey bring in all the money, why should the people involved in fencing and soccer and swimming be entitled to a free education?

Again, how were schools able to provide scholarships before all of the money started rolling in? You are pretending that the players getting some portion of the revenue would make it impossible for kids to get athletic scholarships for non-revenue sports. Then how did they give out scholarships back in the 50s, 60s and 70s before they started selling rights to televise games?

 

[fangers]

Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

I glossed over it because it is irrelevant. If basketball and football and in some schools hockey bring in all the money, why should the people involved in fencing and soccer and swimming be entitled to a free education?

Again, how were schools able to provide scholarships before all of the money started rolling in? You are pretending that the players getting some portion of the revenue would make it impossible for kids to get athletic scholarships for non-revenue sports. Then how did they give out scholarships back in the 50s, 60s and 70s before they started selling rights to televise games?

So just because a person doesn't play a top sport they shouldn't have same opportunity for education?

And it's apples-to-oranges to compare eras like that. The academic costs have skyrocketed as have the costs to compete on the athletic side - travel, equipment, facilities.

 

[Tipsy McStagger]

Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

So just because a person doesn't play a top sport they shouldn't have same opportunity for education?

And it's apples-to-oranges to compare eras like that. The academic costs have skyrocketed as have the costs to compete on the athletic side - travel, equipment, facilities.

They have the same opportunity for education as any other student at the university. Why should the people involved in soccer and swimming be entitled to a free education when a normal student isn't? The revenue-sport athletes are more entitled because they are bringing in money for the school. The soccer players and swimmers don't do that. So how are they any different than any other college student?

The academic costs have skyrocketed? Who controls those? THE SCHOOLS.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

They have the same opportunity for education as any other student at the university. Why should the people involved in soccer and swimming be entitled to a free education when a normal student isn't? The revenue-sport athletes are more entitled because they are bringing in money for the school. The soccer players and swimmers don't do that. So how are they any different than any other college student?

The academic costs have skyrocketed? Who controls those? THE SCHOOLS.

The schools control costs for equipment, travel, etc???

Compare the cost for hockey sticks in the 50's and 60's to the cost for sticks today. The inflation on those alone has been staggering.

 

[Patman]

I glossed over it because it is irrelevant. If basketball and football and in some schools hockey bring in all the money, why should the people involved in fencing and soccer and swimming be entitled to a free education?

Again, how were schools able to provide scholarships before all of the money started rolling in? You are pretending that the players getting some portion of the revenue would make it impossible for kids to get athletic scholarships for non-revenue sports. Then how did they give out scholarships back in the 50s, 60s and 70s before they started selling rights to televise games?

Wow... Nobody is entitled to free education to start with. Second of all what do you care about the number of tennis schollies.

You do realize division 2 gives scholarships, right? Is that from the TV money? Is field hockey that lucrative?